PEACE AND RE-UNION. 



E 668 

.0628 S P E E C.H 

Copy 1 



HON. JAMES DIXON, 

(OF CONNECTICUT,) 



mxmKSD or tss 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



FEBKXJA-Rlir 37. ISeC?, 



WASHINGTON, D. C: 

HENRY POLKINHORN & SON, BOOK AND JOB PRINTERS, 

375 and 377 D street, near 7tli. 

1866. 



e^JU^ 



(,TIIL>1T:. 



irvr m ax' 



i50» 






S P E E C E-T 



The Senate resumed the con?icIeration of the following resolution from the House of 
Representatives : 

" Resolved hij the Honae of Rppresenfatives, ("the Senate concnrrinfr,^ That in ordfu- to 
"close agitation iipon a question which seems likely to disturb tlici action of tlie Gov- 
" ernmniit, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is ajjitating the mindsof the 
*' people of the eleven States which have been declared to hi-? in insurrection, no Senator 
" or Kepresentative shall he admitted into either brancli of Congress from any of said 
"States until Congress shall have declared such State entitled to such representation." 

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Presidt-nt, the Senate has been addressed since the reception of 
the veto message by the Senator from lUiuois, [Mr. Teu-mbull,] the Senator from Maine, 
[Mr. Fessenden, ] and the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Suekman,] in speeches which, as 
specimens of parliamentary debating, are seldom surpassed in this Chamber. With 
many of the opinions expressed by the Senator from Ohio I entirely agree ; and while 
I shall differ somewhat from the other Senators, I admired in common witli tliH entire 
Senate the spirit and tone, not less thnn the abilitj', which they brought to the discussion. 
It was interesting to notice how the emotions which excited the minds of both these Sen- 
tors, suppressed and subdued, yet not entirely concealed, added new vigor to their lan- 
guage, a fresher coloring to their ideas, and the energy and ardor of controlled and sub- 
jected passion to their mannt^r, reminding us of the volcanic (ires pent up and smotlnred 
in the breast of the mountain, which stimulate and invigorate the luxuriant growth on 
the surface. Both these Senators were deeply excited by the position taken by the Presi- 
dent. They are not men quietly to brook opposition, yet they both spoke of him in 
measured terms of respect. The Senator ^-om Maine, in particular, used language 
which I gladly quote : 

"I believe that the President is a friend of his country. I believe that he is n, pat- 
"riotic, devoted citizen; that he would do nothing to injure any of its institutions 
"under any circumstance if he was aware, while doing it, of what he was doing." 

Yet, when I heard these words from the lips of the Senator, I confess that I felt that 
they were not much for him to say. I thought it was not much for that Senator to siiy 
of him who, when the rebellion broke out — then a member of tliis body — stood alone 
of all his southern colleagues faithful among the faithless ; who, without any possible 
hope of otlier reward than the approval of his own conscience, turned away fjom all 
the temptations which beset and overpowered almost every other Union man in the 
South, who, when the war raged in Tennessee, left these seats where we lecliued at 
ease, and, in the midst of rebels and murderers, suii'ered for his country in mind and 
in body, by himself and in his family, all that man could suffer and yet live ; I say I 
thought it was not much for the Senator to say that such a man was a friend of hia 
country, that he was "a patriotic, devoted citizen" "who would do nothing to injure 
any of its institutions while aware of what he was doing." No, sir, it did not, when 
I heard it, seem much for the Senator to say. Yet when I considered when and where 
it was said, the time, the circumstances, I acknowledged it was much. When [ i-eflected 
that it was said, when a leader, made such by his party, in another place, was declar- 
ing that the veto, the constitutional return of the freedmen's bill with the President's 
objections thereto was an act of usurpation ; when I remembered that leading journalists 
were denouncing the President as a deliberate and dishonored traitor ; when I recalled 
the fact that a distinguished Senator had, in consequence of the veto, thought it his 
duty to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States rendering the President ineligiljle to a second term of office, 1 felt that it 
was very much for the Senator to say, contrasting, aa I did, his caUuness and candor 
with the unbridled passion elsewhere exhibited. 



In view of this expression of confidence by the Senator from Maine in the President, 
in which I most fully share, I desire to say a few words on the subject of the resolution 
now before us ; but beiore I do so I wish to imitate the example of the Senator from 
Maine in expressing my sentiments on another subject. He took occasion, while dis- 
cussing tliis resolution," to allude to the veto messa-e itself. I :-haU say a few words 
upon that qiu-stiou ; and p.-rmit me to remark that 1 ft^lt very much in regard 
to the Freedmi-n's Bureau bill as the Senator from Maine said he felt. I voted 
for that measure, but 1 voted lor it with some degree of reluctance. I thought it liable 
to objections ; but 1 yielded my objections as I have often been in the habit of doing, 
and probably again shall be in the habit of doing, to those in whose judgment I have 
more confidence than I have in my own. But, sir, I never looked upon that measure 
as a principle. ■ I looked upon it merely as a measure of detail, a mode of doing a cer- 
tain thing desirable to be done. When I voted lor it I did not suppose myself voting 
for any principle; 1 thought 1 was saying that as a measure it was proper to be adopted. 
Bat when I lound that the President of the United States, who wss to execute that 
law, had himself such objections to it tliat he could not sign it, I was willing to yield 
myjudt^ment to what I thought might be his better judgment. 

I had, sir, another reason which I will frankly state. It is my belief— right or 
wrong— that wliat is known as the policy of the President for the restoration of the 
late se«eded States in this Government is the correct policy— I believe it is the only safe 

policy. ,. • 

Mr. WADE. I hope the Senator will tell us exactly wh-*t that pohcy is. 
Mr'. DIXON. Beiore 1 conclude 1 shall state what I understand to be that policy. 
If the Senator will permit me I will state it in that part of my remarks to which 1 have 
in mv own mind assigned it. 

Now, sir, I may be wrong ; I think I may say that over-confidence in my own judg- 
ment is not among my faults ; but I believe, as religiously and sincerely as I ever 
believed in any doctrine, that the only mode of saving this country from the perils 
that now surronnd it, is that mode which the President of the United States is iuchned 
to follow. Believing that, I am willing, for tlie sake of supporting that policy, to drop 
all questions of detail. I will not differ M'ith him upon questions of detail, if I think 
that by so doing I shall impair his influence in the great work in which I believe he is 
engaged. 

The Senator from Ohio has asked me what is the President's policy. I have not yet 
come to that point : but I desire to say that with regard to myself upon this subject, I 
occupy no new ground. It is said by some that thc-re are those who are following the 
Pn'Sident, who desire to court executive favor. It is hard to beheve that there is any 
Senator here who would give up his own convictions of duty for the sake of executive 
smiles. I trust I should not do it. But, fir, 1 had the honor, more than three years 
ago, of taking in the Senate of the United States the same position which I now occu- 
py ; for some reason, I know not what, I anticipattd this discussion. I supposed when 
our Army was before Richmond, in 1S(J2, that in a very short time Richmond would 
fall, an^ the confederacy would fall with it. It was only a question of time. What I 
thought would take three weeks took three years ; but, sir, the fall of Richmond and 
the fall of the confederacy came, and with it has come the question which I thought 
then would come in a very short time. 1 took the liberty to offer in the Senate a resolu- 
tion which I AviU read, o'f course I do not quote it, nor anything I said on that occasion, 
as having the slightest authoiity, but I quote it to justify and defend myself bvfore 
my constituents, and before this body, and to show that the position which I now take 
was not taken for this occasion, and because the President of the United States happened 
to take it, but because I believed it to be right, and for that reason 1 now siistaiu it. I 
olTered the following resolution a few days previous to the 25th of June, 1862: 

" liesolvcil, That all acts or ordinances of secession alleged to have been adopted by 
" any Legislature or convention of the people of any State are, as to the Federal Union, 
" absolutely null and void ; and that while such acts may and do subject the individual 
" actors therein to forfeitures and penalties, they do not in any degiee effect the rela- 
""tioDS of the States, wherein they purport to have been adopted, to the (Jovcrnment 
" of the Unit(!d States, but are, as to such Government, acts of ndiellion, insurrection, 
" and hostility on the part of the in.iividuals engaged therein or giving assent tliereto ; 
" and that .such Stales arc, notwithstanding sncli acts and ordinances, members of the 
"Kedeial Union, and as smh are subje.l to all tlu' obligations and duties imposed 
" ujKJn liic-m by llie t;onstiiuti()n of tlie United States ; and the loyal citizens of such 
" States are entitled to all the rights and privileges thereby guarantied or conferred." 

That resolution was offered by me, and wliile it was under consideration I took occa- 
•ion on the 25th of June, 18ti2,"to make some remarks upon it. I will read very briefly 



from those remarks ; ami T desire to apolo::;izf> to thn Senate for reading what I then 
said. Of course, I do not read it as autlioritv, but as a defeuse oi my own action now. 
I said : 

"And here I wish to say that, although the importance of the subject would have 
"justified me in so doing, I have not initiated this discussion. The lesolution which 
"1 oli'ered in the Senate, declaring, as I believe it does, trutlis of immense iuiportauoo 
" to the nation at this ciisis, was not offered by me until the Senator from Massachu- 
" setls [Mr. Sumnek] had proposed a series of resolutions declaring an ojjposite doc- 
*' trine, which I consider I'atal 'o our form of Governmewt, destruitive of our Feiiernl 
"system, and utterly' incompatible with a restor'tion of harmonious ndations between 
"the States in which the rt-bellion now prevails and the United States." 

"In our present struggle to support and maintain the (Tovernment of the United 
"States, we are tempted to forget that the time may come when the just preroga.tives 
"of State authority may require defence. The arm of the central (xovernment, when 
"once its control is re-established throughout all our domain, will be more powerful 
" than ever. Strengthened by the exercise of its vast and irresistible energies, its im- 
" peiial mandates will evei-ywhere witiiin its jurisdiction command respect and obe- 
"dience. What encroachments it may be tempted by pou-er aad opportunity to make 
" on the proper sphere of State authority, we cannot foresee ; but it is certain that for 
" a long period after th- rebellion is suppressed and until its memory shall have in some 
"measure faded from the minds of men, the popular inclination will be to strengthen 
" the Federal at the expense of the State governments. The power which their arms, 
"their treasure, and their blood will have rescued from destruction, will he the favorite 
"power of the people. Its encroachments will be viewed, not as before, with watchful 
'•jealousy, but with favor or indifference, while State authority will be viewed as that 
"dangerous and usurping influence that once attempted to overthrow the Government 
" of the Union. This is a censideration which ought not to be forgotten by the people 
" of the smaller States ; and it may be well for them to remember that in the genera- 
" tions to come, through which our Federal system is to endure, their posterity may 
"find in the just rights of the State governments, their surrst protection against a cen- 
"tral despotism. ********* 

"Perplexing as is the question of the conduct of the war, thereis another, which, to 
" thoughtful minds, is not less difficiilt and embarrassing. It is this: when armed re- 
"sistence to the authority of the Federal (iovernment shall cease, and active rebellion 
"and insurrection no longer exist, what will be ■ ur condition and our policy? Will 
" the Government of the United States be re-e-tablished throughoirt thirty-four States 
"united under that Government, or will a portion of these States, having shot madly 
" from their spheres, have ceased to be States in the Union, and have become provin- 
" ces — teriitorial possessions— to be governed as such by the central power? 

" This is the questicm of the day. On this the people of the United States are to act ; 
" on this parties are to be formed. On one or the other side of this question the in- 
" telligent, thinking people of the United States are to range themselves. Ihewar 
" has now brought them virtually together. On the question of its prosecution, there 
"has been, and is at this moment, really no division of opinion worthy of notice in the 
"loyal States ; but when the war shall cease, the question which I have proposed will 
"deaaud their decision, and the diversity of opinion which will exist may be easily 
" foreseen from that already manifested here and elsewhere. What the liual decision 
"of the people will be, in my mind, does not admit of a doubt. It may be given in 
"the terse, expressive, prophetic laiiguage of Andrew Jackson : ' The Federal Uxiox : 

" IT MUST BE PllESEKVED.' " 

I attempted by such reasoning as I could command and such illustrations as I could 
offer to show that my resolution was correct in principle ; and, among other things, I 
made these remarks : 

"Let us see whether even in point of fact, tliis is true. Take the case of Tennessee. 
"She has attempted to pass an ordinance of secession, which has been followed by 
"open rebellion and armed resistance to the General Gi)vernment. For a long period 
"no loyal citizen could live in peace in that State. Those who held to tht-ir allegiance 
"to the General Government were banished. The family of one distinguished patriot, 
" a citizen of Tennessee and a member of this body, were driven from their Lome, and 
"he was himself exiled." 

He is now President of the United States. 

" All that was required for the complete dismemberment of Tennessee from the 
" Union had taken place iu that State ; and if it were possible for auy State, b/ hor 



6 

" OTvn act, or the acts of her people, to cease to be a State in the Union, Tennessee 
" ceased to be such. Yet, how did the Senate treat the fact ? No matter what maybe 
" the hiw, the fact, it is said, is the test of tlie true condition of tlie Ftate ; and what 
" was the fact in the opinion of tlie Senate ? Every day the name of Andrew Johnson 
" was called by our Secretary, and as a memb-T of the Senate of the United States he 
*' answered to his name as a Senatoi' from Tennessee. Was he a Senator ? Was he as 
" such entitled to his seat ? Was Tennessee entitled to be represented in the Senate ? 
"If so, was she not a State in the Union notwithstanding the prevalent rebellion by 
*' which she was overrun and devastated?" 

It may be said in reply to that, that Mr. Johnson, then a Senator here, being once a 
Senator was always a Senator. That is not so. If Tennessee had become a portion of 
a foreif^n country, a poi tiou of Great Britain, for instance, and was engaged in war with 
us, would she be represented in this body ? Should we not have exchided him ? Have 
we not the power of self-defense ? I beg Senators to tell me if that is so, whether 
pvery State among the seceding States could not have held its representation in this 
b jdv, because a man once a Senator is always a Senator ? Would the Senate have ad- 
mitted the right ? Not for a moment. They would have said self-defense requires us 
to exclude a Senator in such a case. 

I made the same supposition with regard to Virginia. I made the supposition of a 
more extreme case : tliat Messrs. Hammond and Cuesnut, then Senators here from 
Sou li Carolina, had thought it their duty, to remain here in spite qf the act of seces- 
sion passed by that State, and perform their sworn duty to the Government ; 
and I asked the yenate if they could not have remained here ; and furthermore, I 
asked the Senate if it was not their duty to remain, and if every loyal citizen 
of South Carolina had not a right to demand of them to remain in this body as 
Senators from South Carolina, although nine-tenths of their people were engaged 
in rebellion ; and there was no Senator here a*, that time prepared to say that 
my position was not correct. I of course do not say tliat this was conclusive. The 
subject then was not fully considered. But, sir, on that very day a debate sprang up, 
and the subject was'thoroughly discussed. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Howard] 
and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] both spoke on the subject ; and the position 
which I took, although it excited some doubt in their minds, excited no horror. I was 
not looked upon as a heretic because I took this position. It was considered that there 
was some doubt with regard to it. The Senator from Michigan said he thought there 
was a difficulty, and r;u]ier intimated that he differed from mii ; bathe did not take the 
ground tbat my position was either heretical or unpatriotic. Throughout the country 
at that time, wherever this jiosition was noticed, the loyal press of the country, 
especially in vny own State, defended that resolution. Almost every newspaper in 
the Statt^ declared it to lie the true doctrine ; and the Legislature of the State, then in 
session, adopted, I think, resolutions of a similar cliaracter. 

I trust I shall be panloned for having thus allued to remarks of my own. I went 
on further in that speech and attempted to show what I believed to be the true policy 
and tlie true theory on the subject. Of course I shall not wenry the Senate with read- 
ing what even then, when it was freshly said, wiis not perhaps worthy of attracting 
much attention. That was the position that I then took ; and am I now, when the 
President of the United St tes takes tlie same position, to turn upon him ? Am I to 
say tliat he is wrong ? Am I to be denounced because I hold to the same position now 
which I then held, notwithstanding the President of the United States occupies it? I 
believed then that the doctrine was correct. It has been fully argued sim.e ; able 
B] eeches have been mad<> upon it ; immense talent in this body and in the other House 
Las been exhausted upon this subject; and yet I have never been able to see tliat my 
posiiion then taken has been successfully controverted. I believe it to be correct. I 
though it right then; I think it right now. If I am wrong now, I was wrong then, 
and have bo-n utterly and entirely wrong ever since. 

Under this state of things, a bill was before us establishing a Froedmen's Bureau. 
As I said, I voted for it, not without doubt, not without hesitation ; and I had occasion 
fjr reasons I have given to change my vote; and wln-n the President's veto came in 
I voted to sustain the vc^to and against the bill. I thought the bill most decidedly ob- 
jectionaDe. I desire to refer to a fi^w remarks made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 
Tkumhitll) in his defense of the bill against the veto, and for a reason which I shall 
soon state, I shall not have occasion to dwell long on that portion of the subject, nor 
upon the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. I will refer to only one or two of the 
poi 'its mnde by him. 

He said that the President's objm^tion tliat the bill established the Freedmon's Bureau 
as u part of the pernianeiit legislation of the Government was not correct, that it was 



not a permanent act ; and what reason did the Senator give for saying that it was not 
a permanent act ? He said it conld be repealed ; that the act provided that it Rhonld 
continue in operation until by law it was provided otherwise. Is not that the case with 
every law ? Can you make a permanent act in this Government ? Is it possible to 
pass an act that cannot be repealed? Suppose you had said in that bill that it should 
continue in force for fifty years, would it hare been permanent in consequence of that ? 
Would not the next Congress have the power to repeal it ? It was as permanent as 
any law enacted by the United States can possibly be made. There should have been 
a limitation of time in it, and in the first Freedman's Bureau bill there was such a limi- 
tation. It was limited to one year after the commencement of peace. In this bill there 
was no limitation ; it was to continue in force until repealed, and therefore was as per- 
manent as it was possible for the Congress of the United States, by any legislation, to 
make any act whatever. 

The Senator then said that the President's objection to military jurisdiction was not 
a good objection, because the President had been up to this time exercising the same 
jurisdiction. Does it follow that because the President of the United States has ex- 
ercised military jurisdiction up to this time, therefore in a permanent act of legislation 
you should authorize him to do that for an indefinite period ? That was the point that 
the President made : this is a permanent act ; you authorize permanent military juris- 
diction in civil cases; and because I exercised it last week, shall I be empowered to 
exercise it next year? I think there was a vast difference between the two cases. 

Then the Senator 'alluded to the intimation that this was a bill for the advan- 
tage of black men, rather then of white men. I desire to say that if that were 
the case it is not the slightest objection to my mind. I think it was made for black 
men in point of fact, and because it was made for black men was no objection to me. 
I am not one of those who could ever understand why because a man is called con- 
servative he should hate the colored population, or why because he supports the 
principles of this Government he should have an aversion or prejudice toward that 
population. If there are those who have that feeling, I am thankful that I am free 
from it. It was no objection to my mind that the bill was intended for the benefit of 
black men. The fa'it cannot be denied that it was so intended. Was it not called a 
Freedmen's Bureau ? Are white men freedmeu ? Was it not to feed and support the 
wards of the nation ? Are white men wards of the nation ? I voted for it with that 
understanding that it was for the benefit of black men ; and I am ready now, by my 
vote here and elsewhere, and so are my constituents, to do anything, as much as any 
other people will do, to pay their money as freely and exert themselves as earnestly for 
the benefit of black men as for the benefit of white men. I place them on the same 
ground. I know no distinction in my feelings, in my sympathies, in my charities, be- 
tween black men and white men. I have no preferences in that respect. There may 
be subjects on which I have pi-eferences, but in the matter of kindness, of doing them 
a favor, of saving them from sutfering, I should never ask whether the suffering man 
was a black man or a white man. It is enough for me to know that he is a man. 

But, sir, I will not follow the Senator from Illinois further, and for a reason which I 
shall now proceed to give. His speech was one of ability, and we had the points 
that he made given at full length in the papers the next day. He gave sixteen reasons 
for opposing the President's veto and supporting his bill. But, sir, I am not called 
upon to answer those reasons ; the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] has relieved 
me of that labor. He has answered them for me. What did the honorable Senator say 
here in his place ? I will quote his exact language. He said : 

" I will say in regard to that message that I had no very particular attachment to 
"the bill which was thus vetoed." 

Neither had I. I felt very much as he did. The Senator continued, as follows : 

"In some particulars it did not meet my approval. I think some of the reasons 
" which the Presidimt gives for not approving it are such as would commend them- 
" selves to public consideration. It is a bill upon the provisions of which there might 
" be a very considerable difl'erence of opinion. I yieldeii, however, the objections I had, 
"and one of them was very^uch like that stated by my honorable friend from West 
"Virginia [Mr. Willey] to the sixth section of the bill, becaus:- I thought, on consido- 
'• ration, that the power did exist, and it was especially necessary to exercise it, and 
" the bill therefore received my v.-.te. If the President had confined himst^lf in the ob- 
"jections which he stated to a criticism of the bill itself, it is very jjossibie that I 
"might have been quite willing to waive my own feelings aud opinion in regard to the 
" bill as it passed, and to sustain his veto." 



J 



8 

I think it was perhaps a misfortnne to the public that the President, in view of that 
declaration, di'i not stop at the point where the !:enator from Maine was satisfied with 
the Veto. I conlil almost wish tliat the I'lesident had nnt given that last leason after 
having given fifteen good reasons wliicli the Senator from Illinois attempted to answer and 
with wiiK-h the Senator fiom Maine was satisfied. What moral power would have been 
added to the President's position and ihe position ot those of us wlio voted to sustain 
the Presidei.t, if the distinguished Senator Irom Maine had voted with us. 1 could wish 
that the President when he had given filteen good reasons for rejecting this bill 
had not given that additional reason which does not satisfy the mind of the Senator 
from Maine. It is not lor me to comment on the action of any Senator in this body 
but I may say that it struck me as somewhat remarkable that the Senator, finding a 
bad bill here and a veto .•sustained by good reasons, should refuse to sustain the veto 
and impicss liis condemnation upon the bill because one bad reason was given for its 
disapproval by the executive. 

Sir, if we all aeted on that principle, I do not know what would be the result. I 
have voted for many measnies for which good speeches have been made and for which 
some bad ones have been made, for which some good reasons and for which some un- 
satisfactory reasons have been offered. I never felt that I was ju.-tified in voting 
against a bill because some of the reasons given for it were unsatisfactory. 

But the Senator says, and 1 wish to do him no injustice, that he voted for the bill 
and against the veto because the principle involved in the bad reason was such that his 
vote would seem to sustain the principle ; and he went on to say that in his judgment 
he could not vote otherwise than he did with self-respect. Perhaps if we had 
thought as he did, we would have done so. Fortunately, we did not think so. We 
did not consider a principle involved in it. therefore I lor one did not violate my self- 
respect by voting for a measure which the Senator himself declared very objectionable, 
and which might have received his negative vote if one reason had not been given 
which was unsatisfactory to his mind. 

But the Senator says that the reason involved a principle. I confess I have not yet 
been able to see that the principle wkich he said was involved in that reason was really 
involved in it. The Senator says in the first place that the President gave this as a rea- 
son f r the Veto, and when that was denied by the Senator from Wi^consin, [Mr. Doo- 
LiTLK, ] the Senator from Maine with soxie degree, as I thought, of severity insisted upon 
his assertion. True it was a reason. It was stated as a grave objection to the bill; 
but does not the Senator's own experience show him that a Senator may have grave ob- 
jections to a bill and still vote for it? It is possible that the President of the United 
States, notwithstanding this grave objection to the bill, might have sent it back with 
his signature but for the other reasons which be gives us, and which the Senator him- 
self is not prepared to say are not good and sufficient. 

I think, therefore, that it does not follow that the President would have vetoed this 
bill in consetjuence of the last reason given by him. But suppose he had ; suppose 
that had been sufluient in his mind. The Senator goes on to say that the President 
takes the ground that not only that bill must be vetoed, but every other bill relating to 
the States formerly in rebellion, if that doct'ine is correct. 1 think this inference fol- 
lows still less than the other. It does not follow in my mind at all. In point of fact 
what h:is the President done ? He lias already signed one bill at least — and I do not 
know but on inquiry at tlie Secratary's table I should find more, relating wholly to the 
southern States, notwithstanding they are not represented — and that was the bill for 
paying the expenses of this very joint committee. 

Tiie Senator says that the President takes the ground that taxation and representa- 
tion must go together, and therefore he infers that the President believes you cannot 
tax those States un!e;-s they are repre.sented. Sir, the President takes no such ground, 
lie knows full well that ta.\;dion must exist. Tiie Constitution of the United States 
provides that duties upon imports shall be the same in nil parts of the country. We 
must therefore have taxation. The President ot the United States in one of liis pro- 
clamations extended tijo internal revenue .system over the wliole South. Taxation 
exists there, therefore, by Ills own act; and yet the Senator says tliai the President 
claims that taxation cannot exist unless representation also exists. What tl'.e I'resident 
said was, not tiiat taxation should cease, but tlint representation should begin. He is 
not argnin/ against taxitioii, but for repn sentation; and lie says that inasmuch as we 
must ta;^ tlie.-e States, they ought, in a maniur wliieh i shall soon indicate, lobe repri;- 
Bented. I think, tlieretore, tliat those; Senators who voted to sustain the President's 
veto and against tlie bid. may ft-el that they havn not violated their self respect, as the 
Beiiatoi' intinuitiMl. Th<y did not tli nk that it involved the prim-ipli- which he .saw in it. 

Now, sir, We liave t'e obj''tiot)s whieh the Senator from Illinois made to this veto, 
&1UHU ill itumhvr, ibui lun of whicli relate lu Ihi^ mt;r« ciiticitim of thu bill madu b/ 



9 

the President, and those objections the Senator from Maine, by his declaration that 
possibly he might have voted to sustain the veto if this last had been omitted, ad- 
judges not sufficient to influence the ziotion of the Senate. I therefore need not answer 
them further. He has answered tlKMU for me. 

But the Senator from Maine says that the President in the last reason given by him 
for the veto of the bill denies the right of Congress to judge as to the entire question 
of representation. He said that this was an a.ssumption on the part of the President. 
When the Senator from Wisconsin intimated that there was no such assumption, the 
Senator from Maine, not being so deeply impressed by his own language as those who 
hear him, denied that he had used the word. He will find on reference to his reported 
speech that he took the ground stated by the Senator from Wisconsin, and used the 
language cited by him. 

Mr. FESSliNDEN. I will state to the Senator that upon looking over the debate as 
reported in the Globe I saw that there was that expression in my lirst remarks, so that 
it might justify what was said by the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle,] but it 
escaped me at the time. 

Mr. DIXON. Other Senators remember what the distinguished Senator says better 
than he does himself. His words are not forgotten. It is not vox fugit with him. 
What is said by \\va is remembered. 

Mr. FESSENDEiN'. You will notice that in what I afterward said I took the ground 
I have uniformly contended. 

Mr. DIXON. Of course I wish to represent the Senator fairly. He took the ground 
that the President of the United States claimed that Congress had not this right. I do 
not understand that the President takes auy such ground. I take no such ground. 
But how shall Congress do that ? I will state the position which I occupy on that 
point. Whether it is the President's position or not, I cannot say. I think it is, 
because he told us in his message that these men had now come to the doors of 
Congress, and it was for Congress, each Houge for itself, to say whether they should be 
aduatted as representatives. I acknowledge the necessity of examination, 1 acknowledge 
the duty of examination on this entire subject by Congress. In what way ? As the 
Constitution points oat, each House for itself. Is not that sufficient? All through his 
speech the Senator intimates that if we come to this position it is merely a question of 
credentials, that we can only examine the credentials of election. Over and over 
again he says that we are merely to examine the credentials of members because we 
desire each House to examine for itself into the question. In my judgment, it is not a 
question of credentials. I think the language of the Constitution is full. The elec- 
tions, qualifications, and returns of the members shall be considered by each House. 

But, sir, if I am mistaken on that point it so happens that I have here an authority 
which the Senator from Maine perhaps will be apt to question, as he probably would 
not desire to say that he himself was an authority, but which the Senate will not be 
apt to question. It is the Senator himself. In the discussion of the Stark case this 
very question arose. It was claimed that Mr. Stark was disloyal, and therefore the 
Senate could exclude him, that the Senate could meet the question in limine, that we 
were not bound to wait until he was admitted as a Senator and then expel him by a 
two-thirds vote. I took that ground myself'. The Senate overruled it. I thought 
that the vote of the Senate on that question was disastrous, and I said so ; and the 
Senator who then occupied the seat that I now occupy'' [Mr. Collamek] told me after- 
wards that my remark was a very objectionable one. 'The honorable Senator from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. P'jmner] also thought that the vote was disastrous, and he rose and 
said that he concurred with me. 

The Senate refused to reject Mr. Stark, many Senators placing it on the ground that 
we had no right to do it. But the Senator from Maine said the fact was not proved, 
and then he went on to say what the result would be if the fact was proved ; and that 
was on the question of credentials. It was om the question of the qualifications, elec- 
tions, and returns of a member. Mr. Stark came here, and in limine we objected to 
him. What did the Senator from Maine say ? He said what I think was entirely 
correct. 

I quote his language : 

" Suppose, for instance, that ono of the leaders of this rebellion should present him- 
" self here ; suppose the State of Tennessee should come back to the Union being 
" freed of those who now control it, and tliat a Legislature properly elected should 
" send General Pillow here as a Senator from that State ; I would vote that he should 
" not be allowed to take the oath, because thougli not a convicted traitor, he is aj» ad- 
" mitted traitor. I would not allow him to come here by my vote ; and if the Senatora 
" ask me upon what principh; I act, I tell them I act upon my own individual respon- 
" sibility as a Senator of the United States. It is for me to judge bv-th with regard to 

2* 



^ 



10 

*' expulsion and with regard to admission ; and it is bet^l^en me and my conscience, 
" myself and my God, who will judge me for the manner in which 1 discharge my du- 
" ties to my country." — Congressional Globe, Part I, Second Session Tiiirty- Seventh 
Congress, p. 870. 

The Senator from Maine there laid down the correct principle. Upon the question 
of credentials this whole question is before the Senate, and it is for us to consider on 
that question whether the member presenting himself here for admission is a traitor, 
or whether he is true to his country. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question ? I do not wish 
to interrupt him. 

Mr. DIXON. I am perfectly willing to be interrupted. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Does the Senator understand me now as contending that on the 
question of credentials the whole question is not before the Senate ? 
Mr. DIXON. No, sir. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Then there is no contradiction. 

Mr. DIXON. I am not claiming that there is a contradiction. I will state what 
understand the Senator to mean. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I say now that unquestionably the whole thing is before the 
Senate ; but I say with reference to the preliminary question, as to the condition of the 
States, that question may properly be left to both Houses to act in concert upon it, be- 
cause it does not involve the elections, qualifications, and returns of members. 

Mr. DIXON. The Senator now says that that question may properly be left to both 
Houses. The Senator told us before that it must not be left there. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Under existing circumstances I think it should and must be left 
to them. I do not think it absolutely essential in all cases, but under existing circum- 
stances I suppose it must properly be left there. 

Mr. DIXON. It is impossible for any man to read the speech of the Senator without 
perceiving that he stated in at least a dozen instances that this is the ground on which 
we place it, a mere question of credentials, upon which we can go no further, and 
therefore he says Congress ought to decide, because if the Senate decides for itself it is 
a mere question of credentials. 
Mr. FESSENDEN. Not at all. 

Mr. DIXON. If the Senator admits that that is as good a way as the other, and as 
proper as the other, he and I have no controversy. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator follows out the ideas suggested by the President. I 
stated what I understood the President to contend for ; I do not know that he meant it. 
I only say that that is the inevitable inference, according to my judgment. I have no 
doubt on the mere question of credentials presented to the Senate alone ; we could 
examine the wliole subject if we saw lit, but I contend that under existing circum- 
stances, and from the importance of the question, the preliminary inquiry as to the 
condition of the States should be settled by the joint action of both Houses in all these 
cases in order that there may be no collision between them. That question does not 
involve the question of the propriety or the regularity of the returns, qualifications, 
and elections of members necessarily, but it lies at the foundation and might properly 
be considered by itself. I understaml, however, that my friend from Connecticut and 
other gentlemen contend that we ought not to leave that question of the condition of 
the States to the joint action of both Houses. 

Mr. DIXON. I do. The Constitution makes each House, separately, the exclusive 
judge of the entire question. 

Mr. FESSKNDEN. He says he does. I was contending that it was a very proper 
question to be so left. I understand tlie President, so far as his ideas may be gathered 
from what he has said, to be contending for the same thing as the Senator from Con- 
necticut. I say it is no usurpation on our part, but a very proper and reasonable and 
necessary thing under the circumstancies and condition of the country. 

Mr. DIXON. 1 understand the Senator to say that because the President took this 
ground, tliat the Congress of the Uuiled States sbouUl not inquire into the (iiiestion of 
the elections, (inalifications, and returns of members hew, but that it .sliould go to 
each House, as the Constitution directs, therefore he could not vote to sustain the veto. 
Mr. FESSENDEN. I infer it from the fact that he lays it down precisely, as I under- 
stand him, in this way : that that matter is settled ; he says he has looked into this 
subject ; he is satisfied about it, and he insists that these men should be admitted. 

Mr. DIXON. I will say in reply to the Senator that the President says no such, 
thing. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. RcjkI his visto message. 

Mr. DlXON. 1 take all his sayings, I take his annual mflBsage to Congress, his last mes- 
sage together, and 1 liud he says tliero that those men have oomo to the doors of Congress 



11 

in fact, aoA that now it is for Congress, each House for itself, to decide as to their aduiia 
sion. Hh goes ou to say, ami he has a right to go oq to sav, for the Constitution pro- 
vides that he shall give us intormition in resard to tiie state of the Union, tliat he 
thinks there ought to bo representation on the part of loyal men. But the Senator 
and those who think with him ("and if I am mistaken I shall be very glad to be set 
right by the Senator^ state that those of us who claim that the Senate shall judge alone 
are in some way letting down the bars, if I may use a common expression, that we are 
throwing wide open the doors of the Senate, that we wish to admit or may admit 
traitors into this body, because both Houses of Congress do not act on the admission of 
Senators. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I call the attention of the Senator to the language of the Presi- 
dent in the veto message. He says : 

"I would not interfere with the unquestionable right of Congress to judge, each 
"House for itself, of the 'elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members,' 
"but that authority cannot be construed as including the right to shut out, in time of 
peace, any State from the representation to which it»is entitled by the Constitution." 

The plain reference from which, I take it, is that that is exactly what Congress is 
doing. 

" At present all the people of eleven States are excluded, those who were most faith- 
" ful during the war not less than others. The State of Tennessee, for instance, whose 
"authorities engaged in the rebellion, was restored to all her constitutional relations to 
"the Union by the patriotism and energy of her injured and betrayed people. Before the 
"war was brought to a termination they had placed themselves in relations with the Gen- 
* ' eral Government, had established a State government of their own, and as they were not 
" included in the emancipation proclamation, they, by their own act, had amended their 
" constitution so as to abolish slavery within the limits of their State. I know no reason 
" why the State of Tennessee, for example, should not fully enjoy 'all her constitutional 
"relations to the United States.' " 

There are some other things in the message plainly intimating that Congress is at- 
tempting to keep these States out. 

Mr. DIXON. Does the Senator deny the correctness of that portion of the message f 

Mr. FESSENDEN. No; bat I deny the correctness of the inference from it, and 
what 1 supposed to have been in his mind, and what I think everybody else must see 
was in his mind, and that is, that these States are in a condition to be admitted. 

Mr. DIXON. That is what I supposed the Senator said. The Senator says he does 
not deny tlie correctness of that statement in the message, but he denies the inference 
that he draws from it. The Senator can draw inferences to a greater extent than most 
men. It is enough for me if what the President says is correct. I am not responsible, 
nor is the President responsible, for the inferences that may be drawn from it. What 
does he say ? 

"I would not interfere with the unquestionable right of Congress to judge, each 
"House for itself, 'of the elections, returns, and qualilications of its own members.' 
"But that authority cannot be construed as including the right to shut out, in time of 
"peace, any State from the representation to which it is entitled by the Constitntiou." 

The Senator admits the correctness of the proposition. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. DIXON. Certainly. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. Suppose that in a time of peace the Legislature of Tennessee is 
disloyal and swears allegiance to the Emperor Maximilian, does the Senator deny the 
authority of Congress to inquire into the character of that Legislature ? 

Mr. DIXON. I do, and there I come directly to the point. It is for the Senate, not 
for Congress, to make the inquiry if a Senator from Tennessee in the supposed case 
presents himself, and if the inquiry relates solely to the admission of a Senator. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. He denies the authority of Congress to decide whether the con- 
stituency is traitorous or loyal ! 

Mr. DIXON. That is another point, 

Mr. TRUMBULL! That is the very one I put. If all the members of the Legislature 
of Tennessee swear allegiance to the Emperor Maximilian and send a Senator here, I 
want to know of the Senator from Connecticut if Congress has a right to inquire into 
he character of that Legislature ? 

Mr. DIXON. I will answer that by asking another question. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. As I do not wish to interrupt the Senator again I desire to say all 
I have got to say, and then he can answer all my questions together. 



12 

Mr. DIXON. I Lope the Senator ^vill uot put two questions at once. I desire to ask 
the Senator this question : suppose that was the case, that the Emperor MaximiHan 
had < ntire control of tiie State ot Tennessee, and a person claiming a right so to do 
should come here and offer himself as a member of the Senate, and should be received 
here ; that, in judging of the qualifications, returns, and elections of the member, the 
Senate decided that he was a Senator, has Congress anything to do -v^-ith the question? 
I ask him if the House of Eeprer-entatives can interfere ? Is there any appeal to Con- 
gress, or any other tribunal ? I ask him if that man is not a Senator in spite of the 
world? Let the Seiiator answer that qiiestion. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator means to ask me if the Senate has not the physical 
power to admit anybody, elected or not, I admit they have the same right to do it that 
twelve jurymen would have, against the sworn and uncontradicted, tetimony of a hun- 
dred witnesses, to bring in a verdict directly against the evidence and perjure thf mselves. 
I suppose we have the physical power to commit perjury here when we have sworn to 
support the Constitution, We might admit a man here from Pennsylvania averae, 
elected by nobody, as a member of this Senate ; but we would commit perjury in doing 
it, and have no right to do it. 

Mr. DIXON. I am not on the question of right. I am not on the question of moral 
right or wrong. I am on the qiiestion of power. The Senator says phA^sical power. 
So it is in one sense. We would tell our Sergeant-at-Arms to turn out a rejected mem- 
ber, and there it would be physical power. If we admitted him the only physical 
power exerted would be the power required of him to walk into the Chamber. I say 
;t is a question of jurisdiction wholly, and it is wholly in the Senate of the United States. 
Congress may provide by law that a certain State shall not be represented lieie, and if 
the Senate of the United States see fit to admit a member from that State as a Senator, 
he is a Senator, and why? Because the Constitution says that each Mouse shall be the 
Judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members. The Senator 
must know instances of this. The Senator recollects very well the case of Mr. Bright. 
Shortly after I came into the Senate I heard him ai-gue that case. Mr. Bright, as the 
Senator claimed, was not elected here. He was picked up in the streets of Washing- 
ton, as it might be said — the very case put by the Senator. He was never elected to 
this body ; it was scarcely claimed that he was elected ; but by the vote of the benate 
the slave power admitted him on this lioor. What could we do ? The Senator made an 
eloquent protest against it, and it was the first time I heard him speak in this body, 
but could he eject Mr. Bright ? And after Mr. Bright was admitted, did he ever attempt 
to eject him ? Did we not keep him here until we were compelled to expel him as a 
traitor ? The Senator says that Congress must act in order to exclude a man, and he 
says that if the Emperor Maximilian were to take possession of Tennessee, and Con- 
;^'ress should act on the subject, its action would have some force or weight or vitality, 
«r there would be some necessity for Congress being called upon so to do. I say that 
not only would there- be no necessity, but no possibility of Congress being called upon 
to act. It is a question upon which Congress has no jurisdiction, and it is a question 
of jurisdiction. What would be the foru\ of a law passed by the House of Representa- 
tives and the Senate, and signed by the President, i)roviding that a certain State should 
not be represented in this body for anyieason, I care not what? Suppose Congress 
enacts by this resolution, if you call it an enacting lesolution, that no member shall be 
admitted from any of the southern States, it would be futile, nugatory; the Senate 
could admit Senators from those States nctwithstanding ; that is my position. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. The point is this : the Senator insists that the Senate ot the Uni- 
ted States has the right to commit perjury ; that a Senator who is sworn to support 
the Constitution has a right to vote to admit a man here from Pennsylvania ave- 
nue 

Mr. DIXON. I think the Senator ought not to take that ground. I claim no such 
tiling. I say the Senate of the United States has the power to commit perjury, but 
does that power deprive the Senate of jurisdiction So has the Supreme Court. So 
lias Congress. But is that saying they have a right to commit perjury? 

Mr. TRU.VIBULL. Very well; he is arguing here, th.-n, in fivor of the power to 
commit perjury. Now, if a person had a mind to commit perjury he could vote that 
a person on Pennsylvania avt-nue, without an election or anytliing else, should have a 
t<eat here ; but I do not Huppose that wo are to argue questions in the Senate of the 
United States upon any such principle. The question here is not as to the election, 

■ lualification, and return of a per.son representing himself as a Senator, but it goes 
Ijehind that. It is for Congress to determine whether there is a State that has a right 
to send Senators here. It is for each House to determine when there is a eoiistitui^ncy 
liaving a right toelect, whether they liavesent persons qualified, and wiietlier they liave 

■ Itnted tliejn piopcrly. Those are two entirely distinct and separate questions. Whea^ ^ 



IS 

the Senator reads from the message of the President of the United States that he ha* 
brought ineii to the doors of Congress, I deny in toto his right to bring members to Con- 
gress. What right has the Piesident to bring members to Congress ? 

Mr. McDOUGALL. Mr. President— 

The PRESIDliNT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield the floor to 
the Senator from California ? 

Mr. DIXON. I hope the Senator will excuse me for a single moment. I must reply 
to these interruptions as I go along, and I shall hear him with pleasure presently. 

The Senator from Illinois says that I take the ground that this body may commit 
perjury. I ask him if Congress may not commit perjury ? Does he esrape it by going 
to Congress ? Cannot Congress just as well commit perjury with regard to the question 
■whether Tennessee is entitled to represention as the Senate ? It is wholly immaterial 
what power the body has to decide wrong. I agree that everybody has a power to 
decide wrong. Congress is as liable as the Senate to decide wrong. It is a 
question of jurisdiction, which body shall decide, not which shall decide right. 
I think this body more likely to decide right than Congress. That is my judgment, 
but I may be mistaken. I think Congress as likely to commit perjury as the 
Senate. The Senator is shocked at the idea that there is a possibility of perjury being 
committed and a bloody handed traitor being admitted into this body. I should have 
some fears that Congress might do tliat as well as this body, especially if the Senate 
goes on in its present course and we are obliged to refer this matter to the next Con- 
gress. I have great fears that the next Congress will be more likely to commit perjury 
on this subject than this Congress. 

Mr. FESSENDKN. Will the Senator allow me to correct an error which I fell into a 
short time ago? 

Mr. DIXON. Certainly. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. I read a passage from the veto message, and my friend asked m© 
if I acknowledged the correctness of it, and I told him that I did. What I meant to 
agree to was, and what I supposed him to refer to was, the statement of principle : 

" At present all the people of eleven States are excluded: those who were most 
"faithful during the war not less than others. 

Then he goes on to say: 

"The State of Tennessee, for instance, whose authorities engaged in rebellion, was- 
"restored to all her constitutional relations to the Union by the patriotism and energy 
" of her injured and betrayed people. 

I merely meant to object to the manner in which it was stated that Congress had no 
right to exclude the constitutional representation of a State in time of peace. 

Mr. DIXON. " Btit that authority cannot be construed as including the right to shut 
out, in time of peace, any State from the representation to which it is entitled by the 
Constitittiou." The Senator does not deny the correctness of that. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. In regard to that, if there were no peculiar circumstances, 
ordinarily you could not do it of course. 

Mr. DIXON. Tliere has been a time when my State and the State of the Senator 
from Maine, and the State of the Senator from Massachusetts were regarded as under 
peculiar circitmstances in this body. Suppose at that time Congress had seen fit by 
law to shut out the State of Massacliusetts from .rejjresentation, would anybody pre- 
tend that Congress had power to do it ? But there was a power in the Senate of the 
United States by which that Senator could have been excluded, and so could the Sena- 
tor from Massachttsetts. There could have been no appeal from that judgment. There 
must be an end somewhere. Now, let us see what Jitdge Story saj-s on this point. I 
trust now the qtiestion between us is understood. I claim that this is a question of 
jurisdiction, who shall judge of everything relating to the qualifications of a Senator 
in this body, both as to his having a constituency and he himself being the representa- 
tive of that constituency. Judge Story says in commenting on the clause in the Con- 
stitution which provides that each House shall be the judge of the qualifications, ^c, 
of its own members : 

"It is obvious that a power must be lodged somewhere to jttdge of the elections, re- 
" turns, and qualili<;ation3 of the members of each House composing the Legislature ; 
" for otherwise there could be no certainty as to who were legitimately chosen mem- 
"bers, and any intruder or usurper might claim a seat and thus trample upon the 
" rights and privileges and liberties of the people! Ind^'ed, elections would become, 
" under such circumstances, a mere mockery ; and legislation the exercise of sovereignty 
"by any self-ooustituted body." — Bee. 833, Slory's Commcntaiiea. 



y 



14 

Does he say the protection is Congress ? No ; but he says : 

"The only possible question on such a subject is, as to the body in which such a 
"power shall be lodged." 

That is, the power to judge whether a man is a usurper, an intruder, oris legitimate- 
ly chosen by a pro2:)er constituency. 

" If lodged in any other than the legislative body itself, its independence, its purity, 
" and even its existence and action may be destroyed or put into imminent danger. No 
" other body but itself can have the samf' motives to preserve and perpetuate these at- 
" tributes ; no other body can be so perpetually watchful to guard its own rights and 
" privileges from infringement, to purify and vindicate its own character, and to pre- 
" serve the rights and sustain the free choice of its constituents. Accordinly the 
" power has always been lodged in the legislative body by the uniform practice of Eng- 
" land and America." 

Congress is not the legislative body. Congress is made up of two legislative bodies, 
and in some instances of three. The law-making power is vested in three bodies in 
this country, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President in cases 
where his approval is necessary to the passage of a bill. The legislative bodies which 
make up Congress are the House of Representatives and the Senate, and each body for 
itself is to judge of everything with regard to this subject. 

But, sir, I have occupied much more time upon this point than I had intended. I 
triist I have shown, I have at least to my own satisfaction, that the President does not 
take the ground that this question may not be fully investigated. He does state that 
it should be done by each body for itself. That is his opinion. He has expressed it in 
a message in which he was giving information of the state of the Union, as he is bound 
to do. He says that we have no right to exclude representation totally under that 
clause of the Constitution. Does anybody claim that we have that right ? We have 
the physical power perhaps, but we have no right to do it. We have no right to say 
that the State of Hlinois shall not be represented in time of peace ; and if Congress 
have the right to say that the State of Tennessee shall not be represented in time of 
peace, the act is utterly futile and nugatory, because in spite of Congress the Senate 
may admit a member from Tennessee, and to-day if Mr. Fowler, of Tennessee, were ad- 
mitted a member of this body, in spite of all your laws he would be a member of the 
body and you could not exclude him except by expulsion. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. DIXON. Certainly. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I want to understand the Senator if I possibly can. Do I under- 
stand him to say that the President takes the ground that the State of Iowa and the 
State of South Carolina stand to-day in the same identical position before Congress, and 
that each House has the right to decide just in the one case what it has in the other, 
no more no less. 

Mr. DIXON. I do not know what the President's opinion on that subject j.s, but I 
will tell the Senator what is mine ; that is all that ]^can answer for. I tliink that the 
State of South Carolina can be represented to-day in this body if the fiat of the Senate 
of the United States goes forth to that effect. Let the Senate so say, and what will the 
Senator do? Suppose a Senator offers himself here from South Carolina and is admit- 
ted on the Jioor of this body, I think the Senator will find himself powerless to exclude 
him except by expulsion. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I understand the Senator to say, then, that in his opinion the 
two States I have named do stand before Congress in the same position, with the same 
rights ? 

Mr. DIXON. Not by any means. The Senator first asked me if each House had the 
same- right to decide in both cases. He now asks me if the two States stand before 
Cougri;as in the same position. That is a question for me and other Senators to 
decide. When they comii hi^ro the Senate is to consider wliether Iowa and Soutii Car- 
olina stand in tlie same position. We are to judge of that question. My private opin- 
ion is that South Carolina is vastly different as to her rights of representation in this 
body from Iowa, but I say tiiat it is a (juestion wiiolly for the Senate to deeide, and 
tliat in point of law, whatever the Senate decides upon it is law in spite of any act of 
('impress to the contrary. As to the power of the Senate to admit their members, 
Iowa and South Carolina stand on the same ground. As to tlie proper decision to be 
rtachitd tliey stand on very different grounds. 

Mr. HOWARD. Suppose tlie House of Representatives should decide the other way, 
and rciusc to admit Uepresentativea from South Carolina while the Senate admitted its 



Senators here, what wonld be the condition then, would the State be in the Union, or 
where would it be? Would it be in nubibiis ? 

Mr' DIXON. That is possible ; we may admit Senators while the House refuses to 
admit Representatives. 

Mr. HOWARD. The Senator will pardon me. What would be the legal and consti- 
tutional condition of South Carolina in that event ? 

Mr. DIXON. 1 think the constitutional and legal condition of Soiith Carolina would 
in that case be precisely what it is now. I do not think it would alter it in the slight- 
est degree if this bodj'^ should admit Senators and the House of Representatives sh -uld 
refuse to admit Representatives. I do not know that that would atfect the character of 
South Carolina as a legal question. Take the Senator's own State 

Mr. HOVVARD. Let me put my own question, if the Senator will pardon me. It 
involves this point, as the Senator Mill see, whether the war, as an existing state of 
things, has had any effect to cliange the political status and relations of the people of 
South Carolina as a political community, which we commonly call a Stale, or has it 
had no such effect ? 

Mr. DIXON. I would not say that it had no effect. I never have taken that 
ground. 

Mr. HOWARD. But what effect has it had, if it had any ? 

Mr. DIXON. There maybe a difference of opinion on that point. I think, notwith- 
standing, that South Carolina is still a State in the Union. That is my doctrine and 
always has been. I think that Tennessee is a State in the Union. I think that there 
never was a moment wlien they were not States, and when, if every citizen of those 
States had become repentant, and they had come h^re and been received, and you had 
been satisfied that they were entirely repentant, it would not have been perfectly com- 
petent, proper to say to those States, " You shall have your representation without a 
readmission." Now, if the Senator suggests that there is no difference betweeu Iowa 
and South Carolina, or Michigan and South Carolina, I do not take that ground ; but I 
say that South Carolina does not need readmission into this Union. Probably that is 
about the difference between us. I consider them somewhat in the condition of a man 
and wife who have separated for a period of years and who then come together ; they 
need not reman-y and they do not. If that may be made an illustration, I do not 
think there is a readmission of the rebel States necessary ; I do not think remarriage 
is necessary. I think they are still in the eye of the law and the Constitution states ; 
and provided the public safety in the opinion pf the Senate will permit it, these mem- 
mers wilirproperly be readmitted to seats in this body. But it does not follow from 
this that the strictest examination should not be made into all the circumstances of 
their condition, an examination which the Senate is fully competent to make. This is 
the constitutional tribunal where it should be made. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Can we not inquire what they have been doing in the mean time? 

Mr. DIXON. Individuals in the rebel States have been fighting as there may have 
been fighting in the case I put. Now, sir, I never could see any great difficulty in this 
subject, but for the question of slavery and the question of negro suffrage. If these 
States were now inhabited by citizens of Connecticut, and citizens of Maine, nud citi- 
zens of West Virginia, who woiild raise a question that they needed readmission ? You 
would admtt their representatives, in my judgment, at once. I think the Senator from 
Massachusetts would to-day receive them if they would allow negro suffrage. Univer- 
sal suffrage, I think, would satisfy him ; and if that were allowed, he would not de- 
mand their readmission as States before allowing them representation. 

But, sir, let us come back to the point. The Senator from Maine says that those of 
us who take this ground are in some way'remiss ; that we propose in some manner to 
diminish and lessen the lorce of safeguards in this body. It is not for us to say where 
the jurisdiction shall be. It is established by the Constitution. If the Senate is made 
the body to decide, how can we help it ? The Senator says that he desires to x'reserve 
the independence of the Senate. He wishes to keep it in the power of the Senate ; and 
what does he do ? I beg leave to call attention to what the remedy of the Senator 
from Maine is. How is it that he proposes to preserve the independence of the Senate 
upon this question? He has here a joint resolution, or rather a conturreut resolution, 
providing that no member shall be admitted into either body without an act of Con- 
gress. The object of this is to preserve the independence of the Senate ! How does he 
do it ? By providing that we shall not admit a member into this body until the law- 
making power — and, in a certain contingency, until the law-making power by a two- 
thirds vote — shall consent to it. Does that preserve the independence of the Senate ? 
He proposes to place this possibly in the X)ower of the President of the United States 
by a veto. It is not very likely that the President of the United States would veto an 
act of Congress allowing representation here or in the other House ; but I do not know 



16 

Ihat he might not veto a bill readmitting those States. Perhaps he might feel that it 
was against settled principles. I do not know how that is ; but suppose he does. The 
Senator says the independence of the Senate is to be preserved, and ln' places it in the 
power of a single man by a veto, at any time and at all times, to exclude a member 
-from this body ! I cannot see how the independence of the Senate is to be pi'eserved 
in that way. Sir, what is this resolution ? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator evidently does not understand the resolution. He 
lias not read it carefully. 

Mr. DIXON. 1 have examined it critically. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. It is "until Congress shall have declared" the State entitled to 
representation. That does not necessarily involve a law. 

Mr. DIXON, Is not a declaratory law a law ? Wiiat is Congress but the law-making 
power ? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. It may "declare" it by a concurrent resolution, as this is. 

Mr. DIXON. If the Senator insists on a several resolution, why not have several 
action in other respects ? If lie will agree not only to several instead of joint resolu- 
tions but several instead of joint acts, and insert in his resolution "each House for 
itself," making it several throughout, I will agree to the resolution. My objection to 
it is that it is joint. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. It does not go to the President necessarily. 

Mr. DIXON. I agree this resolution does not go to him ; but an act of Congress goes 
to the President. 

Mr. FESSENDEN. It does not say "an act of Congress." 

Mr. DIXON. What does it say ? 

" That in order to close agitation upon a question which seems likely to disturb th« 
^' action of the Government, as well as to quiet tht; uncertainty which is agitating the 
" minds of the people of the eleven States which have been declared to be in insurrec- 
"" tion, no fc^enator or Representative shall be admitted into either branch of Congress 
" from any of said States until Congress shall have declared such State entitled to such 
" representation." 

Mr. FESSENDEN. It may so declare by a resolution like the one before us. 

Mr. DIXON. That is not an act of Congress. If it is an act of Congress you must 
have the approval of the President. Your evasion of tlie President's action in this 
case is because it is not an act of Congress ; it is the act of each House by itself. 
-Can you avoid the right of the President of the United States to concur or non-concur 
in every act of Congress ? 

Mr. FESSENDEN. Is not a concurrent resolution, if we pass it, the act of Congress ? 
I do not say "an act of Congress." 

Mr. DIXON. It is not an act of Congress. 

Mr. FKSSENDEN. Is it not the act of Congress ? 

Mr. DIXON. No ; it is not the act of Congress — it is the separate act of each House 
— otherwise it must go to the President. 

The Senator says that this resolution is not an act of Congress. I do not say that 
it is. The resolution itself, I think, is so shaped as possibly not to he the action of 
Congress. Wliy ? Because it is several ; it is not joint. I think there is a very great 
doubt whether the Senator has evaded the Constitution by this, altliough I agree he 
has come very near it, and possibly has done it. But I am not now talking of this 
resolution, wliether this is a law of Congress or not ; but I am speaking of the action 
of Congress to which it refers, which it anticipates, whicli it contemplates. It pro- 
vides that no member shall be adnitted into either branch of Congress from such State 
"until Cengreas shall have declared the State entitled to representation." Will the 
Senator deny that that requires an act of (.'ongress ? 

How can Congress declare a thing ? Can Congress declare that a certain State is not 
entitled to representation except in due form of legislation ? Nobody will contend for 
that. When the Constitution says that Congress sliall do so and so, it nn-ans that the 
law-making power may do it ; and you may here substitute " the law-making power" 
for "Congress" without altering the meaning in the slightest degree, " shall be ad- 
mitted into either branch of Congress from any of said States until the law-making 
power shall have declared such State entitled to such representation." 

I desire to ask tlm Senator if that is not the meaning. Tliis resolution, I do not 
claim, is an act of Congress, nor do I consider it the action of Congress, but of each 
House ; but that is immaterial. I say this means i)recisely as if it was written, "shall 
be admitted into either hrancdi of Congress from any of said states until the law-mak- 
ing power shall have df dared such State entitled to such representation." 



^ 



17 

What is the law-making power ? It is the two Houses of Congress and the Presi- 
dent. That is the position we are placed in by this resolution ; it it auuiunts to any- 
thing ; I agree it does not, but it' it is of binding force yon never can admit a member 
into this body until the l^resident of the United States sliall sign tlie bill, unless you 
can do it by a two-tliiids vote over his veto. That is the mode in which tlie beuate 
desires to preserve the independence of the Senate. I confess, again, I cannot see it 
in that light. 

But what is this resolution ? I have a few comments to make on it. It is very singu- 
lar in its inception and in its character. It was introduced in the other House witii tne 
declaration tliat it was in consequence of the veto uiessage, and a great leader there 
stated tliat he sliould have been willing to admit member^; from Tennessee, if 1 am not 
very much mistaken, but for that veto message. And what does the veto message 
say ? That the Piesident of the United States desires such admission. That leader 
was willing to admit representatives from TeuLessee if the President of the United States 
had not expressed his de&iie for it. That is the wliole of it. 1 take the House cliair- 
man of our joint conimitt-e at his word ; I tliink that was the reason ; and I must say 
here upon my responsibility that I do not think it a good reason. It is not a good 
reason for refusing rep'esentation to a State, that the Presidt^nt of the United States 
desires it, even if he ex^jresses his desire in a manner wliicii some may consider some- 
what objectionable. 

The Constitution says that he ?hall give us information oftiie State of the Union. It 
is his duty to do it. He has done it. He has told us considering the state of the 
Union on tliat subject, that there is is a state not represented which ought to be ; he 
says so ; and thereiore a great and distinguished leader says he will change his mind ; 
that liaving come to the conclusion that the members Irom Tennessee ougixt to be ad- 
mitted, he will reluse them admission tor tliis reason. 

The resolution begins with saying that it is " in order to close agitation." This is a 
subject which agitates and will continue to agitate this whole country. Tlie waves of 
popular feeling are running high and will be more tumultuous ; agitation never will 
cease till more or less of the representation of these States is admitted. But the Sena- 
tor says to close agitation on this subject we should adopt this resolution. 

The people are agitated ; they desire to admit the Tennessee members. We are to 
stop their agitation by telling tiiem we will not do it. Will that close agitation ? I 
wight refer to the experience ot some members of this body. The Senator from Massa- 
chusetts has been in Jiis day somewhat of an agitator. My breath is not agit;ition, but 
there have been times when he has gloried in being called an agitator, and there have 
been attempts to close his agitation, and how ? By law'. This is not even a law There 
was the Kansas- Nebraska bill which was intended to close the Senator's agitation, and 
the agitation of the Senator from Illinois, and the agitation of the Senator from Maine, 
by declaring tliat the people of a Territory should decide for themselves, and that Con- 
gress had no power virtually to act on the question of slavery. Did that close agita- 
tion ? Did the repeal of the Missouri compromise close agitation ? There was another 
attempt. A decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States with the 
view of closing agitation upon the question of slavery. That Court decided that Con- 
gress had no power to pass an act upon the subject of slavery either in the States or in 
the Territories, and they fondly believed that would close agitation. Were men ever 
more deceived ? Did it close agitation ? If any act could accomplish the impossibility 
tliat would do it. It was supposed by some deluded men that the Supreme Court of 
the United States having taken that ground, the jjeople of this country would stop 
their agitation and would cease to talk and legisljite on tire subject of slavery by their 
representatives in Congress. But, sir, that agitation has gone on until it has culuii 
nateil in war, and finally slavery has been abolishetl on the battle-lieid. 

1 do not think the Senator is supported by expei ieiice in his desire to close agitation 
in this way. He knows tliat the vast business interf^sts of this country are eagerly in- 
tent ou this question. He knows that the people of this country are mutually at- 
tracted, the JNorth and the South, and tliey must sooner or later act togetJier. He 
knows perfectly well that whatever Congress may do, this question will not cease to be 
agitated. Adjourn, if you see lit, without settling this question ; luave it as it is ; ad- 
mit no meinbt-r from Tennes.^ee ; and wlieii .you go through the States next fall which 
hold their elections for Congress, see whellier agitation has ceased. Sir, a word of cau- 
tion may not be unlit on that subject. 

In my julgein 'ut it is the see un duty of tliis b )dy today, to-morrow, at tlie first 
possible time to take up tlie credentials of Mr. FowU-r — I name him ; he is the applicant 
here as Senator fiom 'JViinessee — and to act upun tliat question, and in aciing upon it, 
to consider the entire iiuestion wliether TeniiHss- e is a Slate in the Unibn, whether she 
has a Legislature, whether h^r people arc loyal, whether the public safety wiil permit, 



^.i9^Mm.t^mmmmmtiftit*^mmm)mm^. ^ 



her admission, whether the man himself is fit to be admitted. On that question there 
is no doubt. Nobody questions that Mr. Fowler is as loyal a man as the Senator from 
Ohio himself. Upon that question there is no dispute. It is our duty to act upon the 
question of his admission. We cnnnot evade it, we cannot throw it upon Congress. 
Congress has no jurisdiction of the subject, in my judgment. It is the duty of the 
Senate of the United States, an independent body, of being a member of which I am 
proud, as the Senator from Maine declares himself to be, but never with my consent 
will I relinquish one of the prerogatives of this body. It is for us to say and it is our 
duty instantly, upou the mjtnent, as aquestioa of privilege, the privilege of a State, 
the privilege of a member, the privilege of the whole country, to considt^r the question 
of the representaticn of Tennessee, and of other States as their cases are presented. 
Every day that you omit it, in my humble judgment. Senators you omit to do your 
duty. I shall vote for the admission of loyal members at every opportunity offered. If 
others do not the responsibility is theirs. 

But, sir, what is the policy proposed instead of this ? Instead of acting on this ques- 
tion, instead of the Senate of the United States taking up this question of the right of 
a State to representation, and of the right of the member chosen to be a member of the 
Senate, what is proposed ? Tlie Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] has asked me to state the 
policy of the President. It is more difficult to state the policy of those woo oppose the 
president. 

Mr. WADE. I have been listening to your whole speech, and I was going to ask the 
question over again, for I want to know what that policy is. It was very pertinent to 
some observations you made first. 

Mr. DiXON. The Senator will not object to my stating it in my own time and place 
when I reach it, as I assured him I would. I wish first to consider what the Senator's 
policy is. That is a far more difflcult question to answer. I have written statements of the 
President's policj'. Vague and iudetlnite and fleeting like a myth, or like a ghost on 
the mountain in Ossian is the policy of the Senator himself and. of his friends, except- 
ing only my fi lend from Massachusetts. His policy is understood and distinctly declared. 

Now, sir, permit me to consider for a moment the policy of those men who say Con- 
gress is to settle this question. The Senator from Illinois yesterday said there was no 
man within the circle of his knowledge who claimed thai there should be an indefinite 
extension in point of time of the admission of representatives from these States. Is 
that so ? I think not. I have here an index of the policy of those wlio differ from me 
and jjossibly from the President, a resolution offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, 
[Mr. Howe.] It has never been printed it seems, and I ask the Clerk to read it. That 
is one index to th<j policy. 

The Seci'etary read the joint resolution introduced by Mr. Howe, as follows : 

" Whereas the people of Virginia, of North Carolina, of South Carolina, of Georgia, 
"Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee, have 
" her(!tofore declared their independence of the Uovernmeut of the United States, have 
*' ususped authority denied to every State by the supreme law of the land, have ab- 
" jured duties imposed upoji every State by the same law, and have waged war against 
" the United States, whereby the political functions formerly granted to those people 
" have been suspended ; and whereas military tribunals are not suited to the exercise 
" of civil authority : Therefore, 

" Be it Resolved, rjr,, That local governments ought to be provisionally organized 
*' forthwith for the people in each of the districts named in the preamble hereto." 

Mr. DIXON. That is the policy proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin. Whether 
the Senator from Ohio agrees with it I do not know. I know that tht-re are Senators 
here who agree with that policy, and who propose governments to be established for 
thesB .states as foreign nations, as Territories, as districts, so-called mere districts. 
That is one policy. Is not that an inilclinile extension? The Senator from Illinois 
says lie knows no man tliat proposed any such tiling. 

Mr. TRUMIiULL. Is that indefinite ? " Does it not tell when ? 

Mr. DIX'>N. In point of time it is very indefinite. It is definite enough in its char- 
acter, but the time wh«n those States can be rejiresented is the question. Here is an- 
other indication. I find certain resolutions oflered and adopted by a public meeting at 
Gettysburg on the 'Ml day of October, iHll,'), I»y Hon Tiiaddicits Stuvkns, a man of great 
distinction and ability, a leader I may say in the other l)ranch of Congress. His talents 
entitle him to tiie post. These are the resolutions wliich he oft'ered : 

" RcsolrptI, That in our jiid}.',nieut tlie best way to cfTi-ct that [rciconstruction] is to 
" treat tlie so-ualhtd 'conletierute States' as htibject to all tiie liabilities whicli they 
" claimed fiir themselves as a belligeront independent de facto alien to the Coiistitu- 
"tion ; and cntlUcd to claim no protecliou under il. 



19 

"Resolved, That having conquered this hostile belligerent, they shall be held as a 
" conquered enemy, -and the laws which are to govern them shall be referred to Con- 
*' gress, to which, as our State convention has well resolved, it properly lielongs. 

" Resolrecl, Tliat, until Congress shall have acted, none of the 'confederate States' 
" is entitled to be represented in Congress, but shall be held and treated as Territories 
" until again admitted into the Union. 

" Riisolved, Tliat we demand, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania, that Congress 
" shall c^eclare as forfeited and vested in the Government all the real estate of such of 
"the enemy as were rebels, whose estate at the beginning of the war was worth tea 
"thousand dolhars, or more, as our State convention resolved, though we woiild have 
" preferred a lower sum ; and who were the owners of more than two hundred acres of 
" arable land. 

''Resolved, That we desire that the forfeited land shall be divided into convenient 
"farms; and after assigning a just portion to the freedmen, the balance should be 
" sold, at convenient periods, to the highest bidder ; and the proceeds to be applied as 
" follows : 

"1. Invest 8300,000,000 in six per cent. Government bonds, and add the interest 
" semi-annually to tlie pensions of tliose who have become pt-nsiouers by the casualties 
" of this ntamous war. 

" 2. Appropriate .'^200,000,000 to pay the damages done by the rebels to loyal citi- 
" zens wliether North or South. 

"3. Pay the balance into the United States Treasury, toward the payment of he 
"national debt." 

Five hundred million dollars to be received by confiscation and sale of the property 
of the wliole pouth, and the balance of the price to go to pay the national debt. That 
is the proposition of the honorable chairman of this joint committee. Tliis shoclced 
the Senator from Massachusetts, and I may say that in the way of radicalism anything 
that shocks him must be sufficiently shocking. [Lauglxter.] He did not favor it. He 
was shocked by this monstrous proposition. vv liat is it ? The confiscation of the 
property of the whole people, the actual turning out to starvation of an entire popula- 
tion, and until tliat is done no representation shall be admitti-^d into Congress. That 
is one of the things whicli Congress is to do. That is one mode of reconstruction ! And 
still the Senator from Illinois says, in that convincing manner of his, tliat there is no 
human lieiug, to his knowlt^lge, who proposes any indelinite fXelusion in point of time. 
Will it not tak<-^ some little time to accomplish tiiis, 1 ask that Senator? Is not tlie 
honorable member who introduced these resolutions at Gettysburg a man to whom that 
Senator looks as one who has the right to give opinions 1 I do not say that he always 
follows his lead, but he said that he knew no man who proposed an indeliaite 
exclusion. 

Sir, that gentleman is the chairman on the part of the House of this joint committee. 
To him you have committed this question of reconstruction. Our friend and colleague 
from Maine is powerless in that committee ; he has, 1 think, six members on the part 
of the Senate. 'J'he other chairman of the committee has nine. What can our dis- 
tinguished friend do in tliat body ? It is a question of foi ce, a question of physical po;ver, 
a question of numbers, it is not a question of intellect. If ii, were a question of intellect, 
I think the two chairmen would be pretty fairly pitted against each other. I would 
say of the contest between these two men, the honorable member from Penusylvahia 
and the honorable Senator from Maine, as the poet said of the battle of Talavera : 

"A glorious sight to see ' 

For him who had no friend or brother there." [Laughter.] 

Now, sir, I have spoken of the policy of those who differ from me, .and, as I suppose, 
from tile President, on this subject. I might allude to other distinguished imMi. I 
have spoken of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; I have speken of the Sena' or from 
Wisconsin. I will allude now to anotlier gentleman of high position in the House of 
Representatives. I have re.id his speech in the Globe. I suppose in that official papor 
I may comment on it with propriety — a speech of great force, perhaps unsurpassed by 
any speech made on this subject. I allude to a speech published in the Globe as tho 
speech of Mr. Siiellabakger, of Ohio. What does he say ? He Las a policy cf recon- 
struction ; and he says : 

"Mr. Chairman, let this noble utterance — 'irreversible guarantees for the rights 
" of American citizens of every race and condition — be written with pen of iron and 
"point of dinmond in your Constitution. Let it thus be made 'irreversible' indeed, 
" by the. action of the State, in the only way it can be made irreveraibln ; and tlien to 
" establish this and every other guarantee of the Constitution upon the only sure fouji- 



i 



20 

" dation of a free republic — the equality of the people and of the. States — make, by the 
"same organic law, every elector iu the Union absolutely equal in his right of repre- 
" sentation in that renovated Union, and I am content. 

"Let the revolted States base their republican State governments upon a general 
"and sincere loyalty of thi-^ people, and come to us under the guarantees of this 
"renewed Union, and we hail their coming and the hour that brings them. 

" If you ask again, 'Suppose such general loyalty should never reappear, shall they 
" be dependencies forever i" * 

" Sir, convince me that the case is supposable, then with deepest sorrow I answer — 
"Forever !" 

Is not this indefini'e iu point of time ? No, he limits it to forever. Unless he can 
get these guarantees, this Union must remain dissevered forever. Now, sir, is it sur- 
prising that some gentlemen on tliis floor think it is time for them to assert their indi- 
vidual sentiments against these opinions of men of eminent talent and ability iu both 
Houses of Cougress .' 

I come to another example, and one of still more power, probably, in the estimation 
of the Senate. I come to the opinions of the honorable Senator from Massacliusetts, 
£.\Ir. SuMNEK. ] He, presiding at the call of the people of Massachusetts at a great 
State convention held in that noble State in the month of September last, laid down his 
ideas of the true policy of recoustruciiou. So radical is his plan of reconsti'uction that 
he cannot go for the resolution reported by the joint committee of fifteen for the 
amendment of tiie Constitution. That does not go deep enough for him. His is a sub- 
soil plow. He thinks it may require thirty years to accomplish his purpose. Am I 
mistaken ? 

Mr. SUMNER. Read the passage. 

Mr. DlXoN. Here is the speech, "The national security and the national faith," 
a splendid and raagniiicent eli'ort, like all that comes from him. Before thu assembled 
Republicans of the Slate of Massacliusetts, a body over which he presided, of which I 
may say that probably it has never beeu surpassed by any simil .r body on the face of 
the globe for intelligence and for character, the Senator himself giving the people of 
Massacluietts solemnly his oijinions and laying down his manifesto, announced his 
project which was ratilied b^ the convention. He says : 

" There must bo no precipitation. Time is the gentlest but most powerful revolu- 
" tionist. Time is is the surest reformer. Time is the peace-maker. Time is neces- 
" sary to growth, and it is an element of change. For thirty years and more this wicked- 
"ness was maturing. Who can say that the same time will not be needed now to ma- 
" tare the conditions of permanent peace ?" 

The Senator does not say it will take thirty years, but he says no man can say that 
it will not. I agree with him, no man can say it will iu)t. 
Mr. SUMNER. Finish the passage. 
Mr. DIXON. Yes, it is w^orlh reading : 

"Who can say that a generation must not elapse before the rebel communities have 
" been so far changed as to become safe associati-s in a common government ? Plainly, 
" this cannot be done at once. Wellington exclaimed at Waterloo. ' Would that night 
"or Blucher had come?' Time alone was a sub.^titute for a powerful ally. It was 
"more through time tlian battle that La Vendee was changed into loyalty. Time, 
" therelore, we jiiust have. Through time all other guarantees may be obtained ; but 
"time itself is a guarantee." 

Is that indellnite in point of time ? I do not think all this can l)e accomplished short 
of a generation. I desire wliile that jnoicss is going on, while that generatum is grow- 
ing up, that the peopb; of this country shall 1 e reunited, that tln'V shall be repie- 
Siiit<.d by loyal men trom loyal States ard districts in this boily and in the otncr House, 
whili! the Senator is liuishing tlie remainder of his uselul career on earth in bringing 
that great work to accomplishment. Its completion will bring liim to mwre than the 
allotttfd term of human lite- , 

Is not this indellnite ? But, sir, it is said — the Senator from Ohio will excuse me for 
not yet coming to the policy of the President — that the Piesidiuit's lecent speech is an 
obstacle in the way of the President's policy. Tin; Senator from Ohio [.Mr. Siieumax] 
saw fit to bring l>efore this body a s]ieec]i recently made by the President of the 
United States or I should not myself have alluded to it. 1 have but a few words to say 
upon it. 

'Tht^'e are certain matters of juiblie policy which when avowed by the Pri'si(h>nt 
iuteiudl mu somewhat deeply. Peculiar modus of expressiuudo not very tuuuh interest 



21 

me, I confess. "Whether he states his views in a speech from the White House or in a 
message is to ine soixewhat immaterial. What he says is material upon groat iiuestions 
of pul)lic policy. We know that when General Washington was President of the 
Uniteil Stales he introduced, as was comphiined in those days, a somewhat regal and 
imperial mode of conducting the public business. It was as difficult to get access to 
him as to a monarch. When Mr. Lincoln came into the executive chair he was as ac- 
cessible as he was in his office at iSpringfield. General Washington had one mode of 
transacting public busin(-ss ; Mr. Lincoln had another. I am not hereto condemn or 
to justily eiilier of those modes. I may have my preferences, i'ossibly if I could ex- 
press my wish, it would be that the Washingtonian mode was in some respects revived 
and renewed. But does anybody suppose that great questions of public policy in the 
minds of the people are to be ali'ected for a single instant by a question of taste ? Does 
that allect the question of policy ? It is not for us to inquire what is the President's 
mode of life or action, provided it is pure and virtuous. That we have a right to ask, 
and that is ail we have a right to ask. Great questions of pobcy we have a right to 
consider, and the people of this whole country are looking with ewger eyes upon the 
policy of the President, not upon his modes of expressing this policy. 

To suppose that at tliis time, when the ocean of public opinion is heaving in multitu- 
dinous waver, the p-ople of this countjy are to avert their gaze for a single moment 
from the question of policy in order that they may consider tlie question whether a 
particular mode of expression or action is in good taste or not, is to suppose what I 
think does not exist. What the people ask is, what is the policy ot the administration ? 
And 1 am now pr(;pared to tell the Senator from Ohio what that policy is. 

Mr. WADE. Let me ask the Senator whether he derives the evidence of that policy 
from the speech of the President made on the 22d of February. If so, I suppose he 
knew nolhiiig about it, before. Let us have it, then, from that source. 

Mr. DIXON. I shall take authenuc and written declarations of his .opinion. When 
this I ongress met there was, I understand, no difi'ereuce of opinion between the Presi- 
dent and Congress. Was ever a message submitted to a more approving Congress ? 
Was there ever a President's message read by a more«admiring public ? I need not re- 
fer to what followed in either House of Congress. Nearly three months have elapsed. 
It is said there is a diflerence of opinion at this time betweeu the President aiid certain 
men in this body. * 

What is the diffefence of opinion existing betweon the President of the United States 
and those who are hostile to his reconstruction policy in the two Houses of Congress ? 
I certainly disclaim, of course, any right to slate what are his opinions, except as 
they are given to us in authentic public documents. From these alone I obtain his 
views. 

That these are misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise, should not perhaps sur- 
prise those who consider how seldom a candid statement of the true question at issue 
is made by the advocates of conflicting doctrines and opinions. It would seem impos- 
sible, in view of the frank and explicit utterances which the President has often made 
of his opinions, to create in the public mind a misapprehension of his views. Yet this, 
to a certain extent, has been done. He is supposed by many to' urge the admission of 
disloyal men from the rebel States to the two Houses of Congress. He is charged with 
a purpose to bring into their former places in this body bloody-handed rebels. He is 
said to wish to "throw wide open" the doors of Congress and till those seats with trai- 
tors fresh from the battle-fields of the rebellion. What is his true position ? I might 
refer to the publish-d statement of his views in his remarks to a delegation of Virginians 
the other day, in which he explicitly declared his opinion that only loyal men should 
be appointed to office ; but I prefer to take his latest authentic written declarations. I 
shall read from his veto message. I find in that document the following : 

" I hold it my duty to commend to you, in the interests of peace and in the interests 
" of the Union, the admission of every State to its share in public legislation, when, 
" however insubordinate, insurgent, or rebellious its people moy have been, it presents 
"itself, not only in an attitude of loyalty and harmony, but in the persons of represen- 
"tatives whose loyalty cannot be questioned under any existing constitutional or legal 
" tests. 

Such is the language of the President in his veto message. Can it be misunderstood ? 
Can it be misrepresented? What are existing constitutional and legal tests but the 
oath required by the Con.titution and the still stronger test oath prescribed by law ? 

Having stated what he recommends, the President then states what he is opposed to, 
as follows : 

" It is plain that an indefinite or permanent exclusion of any part of the country from 
*' representation must be attended by a spirit of disquiet and complaint. It is unwise and 



/ 



iiip PPV 



n 

" clangerous to pursue a course of measures which will unite a very large section of the 
" country, against another section of the country, however much the latter may pre- 
" ponderate. The course of emigration, the development of industry and business, and 
"natural causes will raise up at the South men as devoted to tlie Union as those of any 
" other part of the land. But if they are all excluded from Congress ; if, in a perma- 
"nent statute, they are declared not to be in full constitutional relations to the country, 
" they may think they have cause to become a unit in feeling and sentiment against 
"the Government. 

This is what the President is opposed to. We have, thi-refore, what he recommends 
and what he disapproves. He recommends the admission to Congress of loyal men who 
can take the required oaths, provided they come from States which present themselves 
in an attitude of harmonj' and loyalty. He disapproves of a permanent or indefinite 
exclusion of all representation, regardless of the lo^-alty of the representative or the 
people. Here, then, the issue is fairly presented. How could he state it more distinctly? 

Yet we are daily told that the President desires to throw wide open the doors of 
Congress to blood-handed rebels. Go where you will — in the halls of representation 
as well as in the public press — you will find the opponents of his policy stating the 
qttestion in this form. 

I have attempted to state the vague, indistinct, indefinite, undecided, and uncertain 
policy of those who dissent fiom the President's policy. It is not my fault that it has 
that character. I have read from their various opinions. If they are uncertain and 
indistinct and difficult to define, certainly it is not the fault of the opponents of those 
opinions. 

Mr. Pres'dent, what then are the two great systems of policy with regard to recon- 
struction and reunion on which the minds of the people of this country are to-day di- 
vided ? One of these systems, known, by way of distinction, as that of the President, 
is indicated in the words which I have cited from his veto message. It contemplates 
a careful, cautious, discriminating admission of a loyal representation from loyal 
States and districts in the appropriate Houie of Congress, by the separate action of 
each, every case to be considered by itself and decided on its own merits. It recog- 
nizes the right of every loyal State and district to be represented by loyal men in Con- 
gress. It draws the true line of distinction between traitors and true men. It furnishes 
to the States lately in rebellion the strongest possible inducement to loyalty and fideli- 
ty to the Government. It "makes treason odious." by showing that while the traitor 
and the rebel are excluded from Congress, the loyal and the faithful are cordially re- 
ceived. It recognizes and rewards loyalty wherever it is found, and distinguishes, as 
it ought, between a Horace Maynard and a Jefl'erson Davis. 

What is the other policy ? It contemplates the entire exclusion of representation in 
either House of Congress from any State lately in rebellion, irrespective of its present 
loyalty or the character of its people, until the adoption of certain measures not defi- 
nitely stated, whose advocates agree neither as to the measures proposed nor in the 
reasons given for their support — this exclusion to continue for an indefinite and un- 
limited period of time,*declared by some to be for five years, by some thisty years, and 
by some in a certain contingency forever ; the entire region comprised within the eleven 
seceding States, including Tennessee, to be held "meanwhile as conquered territory, 
and to be governed as sul)ject provinces by the central power, and the people thereof to 
be ruled as vassals, liable and subject necessarily at all times to taxation, while thus 
wholly deprived of representation and of every right of self-government. 

And now, to render certain this ]iolicy — or at least in view of it — it is proposed by 
tlu' resolution now under consideration to enact, so far as such a resolution can enact, 
that neither House of Congress shall admit a member from any one of the States lately 
in rebellion, whatever may be his own past or present character or conduct, and how- 
ever true and loyal may be the people by whom he is elected, until consent is given, by 
an act of Congress, passed by both Houses and signed by the President, in tlie face of 
the express piovision of the Constitution, that " each House shall be the judge of the 
elections, qualifications, and returns of its own members." 

These, Mr. President, are the two systems of policy now presented for the considera- 
tion of this country. One or the other must be adopted by tlie Government. All minor 
issues, and all intermediate views and opinions, must gravitate toward and be absorbed 
by one or the other of tliesc great coinmauding systems of policy ; and all (jiiestions of 
local interest or of minor details in the work of reconstruction become therefore unim- 
portant, and may be left out of consideration. 

I have stated wlial I l)elieve to be the true issue in the briefest possible form of 
words. Hore, in my Judgment, is tiie wlioio of this vast question which is to agitate 
the publiu miad of thid country, and the deoLiiuu of which ia to shape and control its 



X 



23 

governmental policy for a long period of years. All points of mere detail in regard to 
it will be lost siglitof and forgotten in view of the vast and overwhelming idea of the 
permanent and fraternal reunion of the people of every one of those States under a 
common tiag and a common representative Government. It is impossible, in the nature 
of things, that the public mind should be occupied by any other political question. 
Until this is decided, finally and forever, no personal or party consideration can divert 
the eager attention of the people from the exclusive investigation of this question. 
Nor can any thoughtful mind doubt as to the final decision. Before the war the love 
of the Union was the passion of the loyal national heart, and now that the war is over 
its passion will be reunion. For a brief period the dissevered sections of our country 
may be held apart by the main force of party and of faction, but every day the mutual 
attraction of the separated parts is growing stronger and more irresistible. If there 
are any who attempt to hold them asunder their fate will be that of Milo : 

"The Roman, when he rent the oak, 
Dreamed not of the rebound." 

They may be crushed, but the Union will be restored under a Constitution amended 
and purified, by which slavery is forever abolished, and freedom, with all its incidents, 
forever guarantied. 

Believing the first-named policy to be that of President Lincoln, as has been con- 
clusively proved by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doolittle,] and 
that in adopting it President Johnson has but followed in the path of his predecessor ; 
and believing also that this policy is but a continuation of the great struggle in defense 
of the noble cause of the Union, for which President Lincoln and all his martyred 
brethren died, I declare mj' confident trust that the people will support and uphold 
Andrew Johnson in its advocacy and defense, as in the darkest days of the war they 
supported and upheld Abraham Lincoln. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 040 845 1 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

nil' II"' ll'lHllr III!' Ilir III ||i|<<|ii Mr, 



014 040 845 1 



p6Rnulip6» 



TT O * 



